Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Jorge's opportunity to debate specific data

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
    Phank and Jorge are wonderful examples of thesis and antithesis but without hope of synthesis.

    At least I hope they don't come to the synthesis I have in mind.

    Poor Hegel.

    K54
    No need for that. As many here have said many times, one approach WORKS and the other simply does not. I mentioned what I consider the values of evidence, data, observation, logic, and testing. Such bigoted concepts! But I would not have expected you to join others in rounding the wagons to fight them off. You usually strike me as more analytical, and better able to understand and explain clearly why those who respect testing and evidence are "bigorts".

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
      Nonsense. I refer you to the CSR, AiG and CMI websites (as a start) where you will find scores of articles that demolish your above claims - just type the key words in their 'Search' window. As I keep repeating, there are but two (2) options: you and people like you are either (a) ignorant of what's out there or, (b) you do know but aren't honest about it.

      Jorge
      Jorge, I have read those attempts at rebuttal. And I am therefore not ignorant of them or their content. But neither am I dishonest about them. They simply are NOT correct.

      But, Jorge, I understand it is impossible for you to even conceive of what is obvious here. The links you reference are just continuations of that same incredulity, and they have nothing to do with the history, or the language, or what actually is said by the text. They are special pleading or hopeful constructs. Rogue's post is also impossible for you to digest I am sure. So I'm really not trying to debate you on this. It's a dead end.

      I would however like you to take a turn on my post #202 where I answer your longer post with the reference to the comets.


      Jim

      *ETA: Let's take a test Jorge. Can you even see that the dome interpretation is 100% consistent with the text itself? I am not asking you to admit it is the right interpretation. I am asking if you can even see that it is a consistent rendering of the text.
      Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-30-2014, 09:44 PM.
      My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

      If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

      This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

      Comment


      • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
        AFAICT all of the Early Church Fathers and theologians on up through the Middle ages saw the firmament as being a solid structure.

        Theophilus of Antioch (d.185); Clement of Alexandria (d.215); Origen (d.253); Novatian (d.258); Hilary of Poitiers (d.368); Athanasius (d.373); Basil the Great (d.379); Cyril of Jerusalem (d.386); Diodore, Bishop of Tarsus (d.394); Ambrose (d.397); John Chrysostom (d.407); Severian, Bishop of Gabala (d.408); Augustine (d.430); Cosmas Indicopleustes (6th cent.); John Philoponus (a.k.a., John the Grammarian of Alexandria) (d. 570); Isidore, bishop of Seville (d.636); Venerable Bede (d. 735); Robert Grosseteste, Bishop of Lincoln (d. 1253); Thomas Aquinas (d. 1274) all either explicitly or implicitly stated that the firmament was a solid, physical structure. The same with such books like "Apostolic Constitutions" (or "Constitution of the Holy Apostles"), Book of Enoch, Book of Baruch, Genesis Rabbah and the pseudo-Clementine "Recognitions."

        Martin Luther was probably the last great theologian to accept a watery, solid firmament above the clouds and sky.


        frontispiece from Martin Luther’s
        translation of the Bible (solid firmament)

        None of this means that this view was the correct one but rather it is the result of an overly literal translation of the text
        The final line is the key point. It IS what the text implies IF one insists on an overly literal rendering being the only correct rendering. It is the only consistent rendering if one is to take the days as literal, 24 hour periods. And that is the point. That fact alone is sufficient to show that one needs to move in a different direction that an absolutely literal rendering. The sky is NOT a solid dome. These references and wordings are artifacts of phenomenal writing by an inspired writer who characterized God's revelation in colloquial terms. The chief take away from that then is that we should be asking what is then God's message in Genesis 1. If it is not to describe the mechanics of the creation (and it clearly is not), then what is it telling us. And when we step back and look at how it is written and compare it to other local creation stories, it becomes clear that this creation description turns the local conceptions of the gods and man's place in the cosmos on its head. There is one God. The creation is not the manifestation of a pantheon but rather something God created and something that is good. And mankind is not some accidental misfit that aggravates the gods but rather God's personal focus and crowning creation. Mankind was created to have a special kind of relationship with God.

        And to a person from the Ancient Egyptian or Babylonian culture reading or hearing this text, THAT would most likely be the major takeaway point. The other stuff we think is so important likely would not even register as having significance.


        Jim
        Last edited by oxmixmudd; 05-30-2014, 09:42 PM.
        My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

        If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

        This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

        Comment


        • Originally posted by phank View Post
          No need for that. As many here have said many times, one approach WORKS and the other simply does not. I mentioned what I consider the values of evidence, data, observation, logic, and testing. Such bigoted concepts! But I would not have expected you to join others in rounding the wagons to fight them off. You usually strike me as more analytical, and better able to understand and explain clearly why those who respect testing and evidence are "bigorts".
          I am exceedingly analytic when it comes to nature and scientific method. I'm quite versed in the methodology and body of knowledge, especially geology, and don't reject ANY of it for religious reasons. My scientific knowledge is very broad but not particularly deep, and I can generally hold my own in a conversation. My Ph.D. is in maths so I have a very good background in logic. I may be a schmuck, but I'm not your ordinary schmuck.

          I do bristle when science is assumed to obviate faith (I.e., faith that doesn't directly contradict well-established science knowledge in the normal operation of nature.) And I bristle when documents of ancient peoples whose putative purpose is to convey spiritual knowledge, and only make "scientific" sense in the context of their culture, are used to throw out all of the historical sciences that don't agree with some form of "literal" interpretation of those documents.

          When it comes to the Genesis creation stories, the hard-nosed YEC and the snarling cynical New Atheist take the same interpretation. The former as fundamental to a particular version of Christian faith, the latter to mock any version of Christian faith. The former view OECs and TEs (a term I despise) as apostate, the latter as under-enlightened useful idiots.

          K54
          Last edited by klaus54; 05-30-2014, 10:29 PM. Reason: guess what?

          Comment


          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
            ...
            *ETA: Let's take a test Jorge. Can you even see that the dome interpretation is 100% consistent with the text itself? I am not asking you to admit it is the right interpretation. I am asking if you can even see that it is a consistent rendering of the text.
            Jim,

            This is a VERY important point!

            Why isn't the ra'qia (or stereoma) as a solid dome NOT a valid literal interpretation? It certainly is an interpretation, and like Rogue pointed out, a common one until the Middle Ages.

            Why would Jorgian YECs interpret it as anything else? Oops! I said the bad word "interpret". Silly me.

            Then they would have to admit that those verses need need to be interpreted, which contradicts their assertion of a "plain, simple, straightforward, plain even to a child" reading. (Which of course is an interpretation, and one that is evidently not unambiguous even among the Illuminati.)

            Certainly they wouldn't use science to inform their Genesis reading? Perish the thought!

            It will be fun to watch Jorge wiggle out of this conundrum. Better than Houdini...

            K54

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
              "Knowledge" of the universe is always suspect - we see as through a dark glass.
              Interpretation with context and a proper, time-tested exegesis-hermeneutic
              should reign whenever there is conflict between the two (which isn't very often).





              Uhmmm ... hey, Bozo, I gave them WHAT THEY ASKED FOR and what they loudly claimed did not exist. One of these days you may want to try some integrity - it won't hurt.



              Yup. If God says it then you had better maintain that belief. Consider the time that God told Noah to prepare for the Flood. Imagine building a huge boat on dry land based solely on a "Word" given to you. Methinks that folk like you would have perished thinking to yourself, "This is nuts! Building a huge boat far away from any body of water is crazy!" Yup, that sounds just like you.



              Here it comes - time to bring in the PRATTs!



              The "solid dome" and "geocentric views" has been asked and answered countless times - why bring them up yet again? Go to the CSR, AiG, CMI websites and you'll find scores of articles that address and answer those objections - that's not even counting the books and presentations that have been given on those topics.

              You ask, "Or are we still discovering?" Of course we are! So? God's Word remains (should remain) through it all. It's not that we "bolt the doors", it's that there are events that transcend Naturalistic science - period! But, as I know well, for people like you that's not necessarily true. That's why you people are constantly seeking for Naturalistic explanations for events that the Bible reports but that upset your Materialistically-inclined thinking. So, for example, we read stuff like what O-Mudd posted recently - Naturalistic explanations for how thousands can be fed with just a few loaves and fishes. Exactly the same (Naturalistic "explanations") have been sought and proposed for all of the other Scriptural miracles.

              Let me share something that I first wrote way back - around 1982: People that place too much weight on the physical 'evidence' that they observe and measure are to be pitied. These people simply haven't grasped the sheer power and wonder of the God that some of them profess to believe in and follow. They remind of the Egyptian in the the movie The Ten Commandments who said (paraphrasing): "Their God is a poor general, he gives them no retreat." [This was at the part of the movie when the Egyptian army was chasing down the Israelis and had cornered them at the Red Sea]. That Egyptian, just as those that place physical 'evidence' on too high a pedestal, was clueless as to the Majestic, infinite power that he was dealing with. I envision God smiling at that poor slob's remark and then opening up the Red Sea for Israel to cross it - how's that for being a "good general"? Yes, that was just a movie but my point remains - try to stick to it.

              The lesson is obvious: STOP TRYING TO LIMIT OR TO DICTATE what God has done / can do because your feeble intellect (just like that of the Egyptian) is incapable of grasping a Being that transcends anything that you (or any of us) can even imagine. I mean, do you think it even crossed the mind of that Egyptian that the Red Sea would open up to allow transit? Of course not. So stop trying to make God fit what the 'physical evidence' appears to indicate. Otherwise, I guarantee you that, like the Egyptian, you will lose - God will laugh at your vain imaginations.

              Jorge

              You missed the point by miles, despite it being clearly stated what it was. I remember you doing exactly this with me before on old TWeb. I present something from AiG and then you go and tell me to read AiG! Obviously I am aware of the AiG articles, given that I went to AiG to post Holding’s rebuttal of Seeley. The point is not to come to a poker table full of articles and internet postings, “I’ll see your unconsolidated ash argument and raise you a trace carbon-14 in diamonds argument”. This only serves to miss the crux of the question and why we never get anywhere in our discussions.

              Irrespective of whether it is the right interpretation or not, the exegesis of Gen 1 in absentia of science renders raqia as a solid dome. This is a viable reading and how they chose to view the sky as borne out by Jim’s and rogue06’s posts. There is nothing inconsistent about the exegetical methods used to derive such a meaning. J.P. Holding presents evidence of an equivocal meaning of raqia and whilst these may be acceptable (Jim’s counters notwithstanding), it is not how the ancients viewed the cosmos, which was in part or in full derived from an exegesis of Gen 1.

              Again, I am not trying to argue for or against definitions of raqia, but to question at what point is science allowed to influence the exegetical method and/or its conclusion? I refer once again to thura, Jesus being the door. Nothing in the exegesis that I could find said it was a metaphor, but we know it is not to be taken literally. Part of your argument I quoted was that the 6 days of Genesis were not metaphorically written according to the exegesis. So then, why cannot one treat raqia in a similar fashion to thura? They’re written with literal markers and yet taken metaphorically (certainly in the latter case).

              The question is to any YEC: At what point is science allowed to influence exegetic methods and/or their conclusions? Can you bring yourself to even agree this does actually happen with thura? And did/does with raqia too?

              You wrote “You ask, "Or are we still discovering?" Of course we are! So? God's Word remains (should remain) through it all.” This presumes that you have God’s Word correctly understood from the outset. You refer to “proper” exegetical methods and I would say that it is too easy to read “proper” in your claim as being “whatever rendition conforms to my beliefs”. Can you precisely define what “proper” means in the methodology used? Does that incorporate our understanding of the world around us to do so? Seriously, did you miss the essence of what Holding wrote in his summary? “But it was not beyond God’s ability to present the truth without any mix of error. Equivocal language, terms left precisely undefined, served until such time as our own understanding was sufficient to comprehend the wonders of God’s creation.” This bespeaks exactly of the practise that some Christians have done and continue to do today, namely we allow (some) science derived from the wonders of God’s creation to inform our understanding of the Biblical texts and infer what God’s Words meant from Gen 1 and how that maps onto other areas of the Bible. However, YEC had determined at some point that it had sufficient understanding and bolted the door and nothing else can be considered.

              You also wrote “So stop trying to make God fit what the 'physical evidence' appears to indicate.” This is easily turned back on you with “So stop trying to make God fit what your 'exegetical interpretation' appears to indicate.” Your argument here is really poor and a stumbling block to anyone on the outside thinking about coming in.
              Last edited by Omega Red; 05-31-2014, 05:00 AM.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Omega Red View Post
                You also wrote “So stop trying to make God fit what the 'physical evidence' appears to indicate.” This is easily turned back on you with “So stop trying to make God fit what your 'exegetical interpretation' appears to indicate.” Your argument here is really poor and a stumbling block to anyone on the outside thinking about coming in.
                Ridiculous and I haven't the time (now) to say any more than that. Perhaps later ...

                Jorge

                Comment


                • Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                  Given the above evidence for a cometary reservoir such as the Oort cloud, in order to establish their point YECs should be providing evidence against it rather than merely relying upon personal incredulity.
                  So now we have to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST !?!?!

                  Bwahahahahaha !!!

                  Jorge

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                    Ridiculous
                    Yes, your arguments usually are.

                    Originally posted by Jorge
                    and I haven't the time (now) to say any more than that. Perhaps later ...

                    Jorge
                    Please PM if you are going to engage with detail, insight and substance regarding what I actually wrote and not what you think I wrote, what you hoped I had written or what someone in your support group rumoured I might have said once upon a time. If it's just going to be your usual blatherskite, please don't bother responding.

                    Comment


                    • How is "spreading out the heavens" or some such phrase a better literal rendering of raq'ia than a solid dome? The former sounds metaphorical rather than literal. And the former is an interpretation that spawns many interpretations. And how could a version of the former exist without an input of modern scientific knowledge of the Cosmos.

                      As Rogue pointed out the solid ra'qia interpretation was common among the ECFs as well as the rabbis who translated the LXX (στερέωμα).

                      These are simple questions. If the answer is so simple, why can't Jorgian YECs answer them simply without resorting to a Holding treatise? I thought they were looking for a plain, simple-even-to-a-child, direct literal reading?

                      K54

                      Comment


                      • It wasn't a dome; it was an elevation and a "fimament". It certainly wasn't a gaseous expanse.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Omniskeptical View Post
                          It wasn't a dome; it was an elevation and a "fimament". It certainly wasn't a gaseous expanse.
                          Stereoma (στερέωμα) means something solid. And it held up water. Ra'qia (רקיע) in Ezekiel is described as "hard as molten glass."

                          Whence did you obtain your exegetical virtuosity? And what personality disorder maketh thou so confident in your unusual interpretation? Is it "Unitarianism"?

                          K54

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                            So now we have to prove that something DOES NOT EXIST !?!?!

                            Bwahahahahaha !!!

                            Jorge
                            That's not what Rogue said, Bloviatus maximus.

                            He gave you examples of possible Oort Cloud objects. The OC a subject of ongoing study. That's how science works. But I wouldn't expect you, a bloviating cowardly gasbag, to know that.

                            K54

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by klaus54 View Post
                              That's not what Rogue said, Bloviatus maximus.

                              He gave you examples of possible Oort Cloud objects. The OC a subject of ongoing study. That's how science works. But I wouldn't expect you, a bloviating cowardly gasbag, to know that.

                              K54
                              Perhaps you'd be right in your weird-n-wacko world of semantic gymnastics. But in the normal world - where the plain, direct meaning of words indicates the message conveyed - then you are (once again) indulging in your colorful Fantasy Land.
                              .
                              .
                              .
                              "Given the above evidence for a cometary reservoir such as the Oort cloud, in order to establish their point YECs should be providing evidence against it rather than merely relying upon personal incredulity."

                              So now YECs have to provide evidence that the Oort Cloud DOES NOT EXIST !?!?!

                              Bwahahahahaha !!! Mercy ... mercy !!!

                              Jorge

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Jorge View Post
                                Perhaps you'd be right in your weird-n-wacko world of semantic gymnastics. But in the normal world - where the plain, direct meaning of words indicates the message conveyed - then you are (once again) indulging in your colorful Fantasy Land.
                                .
                                .
                                .
                                "Given the above evidence for a cometary reservoir such as the Oort cloud, in order to establish their point YECs should be providing evidence against it rather than merely relying upon personal incredulity."

                                So now YECs have to provide evidence that the Oort Cloud DOES NOT EXIST !?!?!

                                Bwahahahahaha !!! Mercy ... mercy !!!

                                Jorge
                                Doesn't basic logic dictate that if evidence is provided for the existence of something then you shouldn't merely dismiss it out of hand by essentially saying that the evidence doesn't exist because it doesn't exist?

                                This is precisely what I mean by relying on more than personal incredulity.

                                I'm always still in trouble again

                                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
                                48 responses
                                136 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Sparko
                                by Sparko
                                 
                                Started by Sparko, 03-07-2024, 08:52 AM
                                16 responses
                                74 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Started by rogue06, 02-28-2024, 11:06 AM
                                6 responses
                                48 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post shunyadragon  
                                Working...
                                X